About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
the commander of the league war in afghanistan. lt. john allen confirmed the president's plan to withdraw troops by next september was not one of the options presented by the current commander, general david petraeus. he was joined as confirmation hearing by vice admiral william mcgraven, a member of the seal team that killed osama bin laden. and general james thurmond. this is about two hours, 25 minutes. >> good morning everybody. mccreary here to consider the three military nominations for command of some of the most >> witnesses this morning on what is truly a joint panel are general james thurmond, u.s. army nominated to be commander united nations command combined forces command that u.s. forces correa, vice admiral william mccraven as navy and nominated to be commander special operations, and lieutenant general john allen, a u.s. marine corps for rob portman to the grid of general and nominated to be commander of the nato international security assistance for u.s. forces in afghanistan. thank you all for your many years of great service to this nation and your willingness to serve once ag
government will withdraw 500 troops from afghanistan by the end of 2012. reducing troop levels to 9,000. following his remarks he answered questions from the opposition leader and members of the house of commons on counterterrorism efforts with pakistan, setting up officer training academies for afghan police and security operations in the region. this is an hour. >> prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with the mission i'd like to make a statement on afghanistan. from the outset this government has sought to take a more hard-headed, more security-based approach to our mission. as i said, we're not there to build a perfect democracy. still less a model society. yes, we will help with the establishment of democratic institutions. yes, we can improve infrastructure, develop education, encourage development. but we are in afghanistan for one overriding reason, to ensure our own national security by helping the afghans to take control of theirs. this means building up the afghan security forces so we can drawdown british combat forces with the afghans themselves able to prevent al
have expanded radically with involvement in afghanistan and iraq. as we will hear, the u.s. as crated a police force in iraq that may number as many as 400,000 personnel. the goal of the u.s.-led nato training effort is at 157,000 police and the cost of this training program to the u.s. alone is about $1 billion per month. today, police assistance programs in the government are in multibillion-dollar effort led by the departments of defense and the department state but involving a number of other federal agencies. as programs have grown in size and cost, they also grow in kind. as you saw from the exhibition here on the screen, policing around the world is heavily impacted by history, culture, legal systems, and level of development. police forces differ markedly, so do they differ by agency and the country in which they work in. today, we have assembled a panel of very distinguished experts to discuss the various approaches that the u.s. government takes towards police training in foreign countries. you have the bad reviews for our speakers, so i will not do that. the speakers will c
to see some cost- benefit analysis on infrastructure and afghanistan at some of the other things that they are for. i think it is a reasonable thing to do. as long as the cost includes, of course, the financial crisis and the terrible lost revenue in jobs and tomorrow -- that is the cost. i noticed that alice sloan has come out with a reanalysis that will be printed in "fortune" about how much money we have made over the intervention. the combination of the tarp. his calculations are it made a hundred billion dollars for the federal government. >> there has been sent criticism of a not driving more clarity at this point. i wanted to be your view on that. just as it related question, he talked about bailouts being over. if citigroup were to go out and finds, are we to believe there would not be a bailout again? >> first of all, i will not comment on any specific financial institution. none of us have any reason to belize city is in danger. you have -- my first couple of weeks, i talk like a normal person. here i am affecting the market. obviously, i do not talk about citigroup, bu
and distinction in iraq and afghanistan would feel that way to draw back on the benefits that they earned. during the bush years our country spent $1.5 trillion in iraq and national defense. the turnaround in our budget picture during the bush years was remarkable. in october of 2008, cnn reported that the debt clock had run out of numbers. the debt clock actually had exceeded 13 digits that had been allotted to the clock and had to be revised. according to one report at the end of the bush term, the number of jobs in the nation increased by 2%. that's the lowest at anytime since data began to be collected seven decades ago. gross domestic product was at the lowest pace since the truman administration, and the price that america has paid for the theology that suggested during all of those years that tax cuts pay for themselves. you can't find a mainstream economist in this town today who will acknowledge that argument. and yet we hear now more tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. by the time that the bush years ended, the debt had increased to $10.6 trillion, setting a record for any administra
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)